4 ms·

>Have no idea why Google’s doing that. It's duplicate content. That's punished in the SERPs.

Const-me 8y ago
Search “karmadecay” on google images. You’ll get zero results from karmadecay.com. Not on the first page, not on the 10-th page, it’s just not there. Normally, the domain is very strong keyword. Search for “facebook” and the first image will be from facebook.com, search for “duckduckgo” and you’ll see a screenshot image hosted on duckduckgo.com on the 7-th place (not the first I expected but still high enough). I’m not sure how your duplicate content remark explains this behavior. karmadecay has original logo image, why it’s not found?
- SquareWheel 8y ago
  A search for "site:karmadecay.com" brings up some results. (warning: mostly nsfw)
  - Const-me 8y ago
    Right, I have wrote that in my first comment: > Google will only show result from that domain if you limit search to that domain with “site:karmadecay.com” The question is, why doesn’t normal image search show that site ever, despite tons of content? I know technical reasons are still possible, but so is google breaking laws, they have quite a history of unlawful behavior and have paid billions in fines for that.
    - SquareWheel 8y ago
      >Right, I have wrote that in my first comment My mistake. >I know technical reasons are still possible... It could be as simple as a penalty for breaking one of their webmaster guidelines.
      - Const-me 8y ago
        > could be as simple as a penalty for breaking one of their webmaster guidelines. Agree. Could also be for not having a mobile-friendly version, or for not using AMP. Still, even if google does nothing illegal here and acts in good faith, do you think it’s OK to de-prioritize relevant search results based on these technicalities? As a consumer, when I search stuff in a desktop browser, I don’t give a damn about mobile versions nor webmaster guidelines. I want search results relevant to my search query. Arbitrary limitations imposed on web masters by search engine decrease quality of results.
        SquareWheel 8y ago
        >Still, even if google does nothing illegal here and acts in good faith, do you think it’s OK to de-prioritize relevant search results based on these technicalities? I do. That's actually the job of a search engine. If it wasn't choosing ranking factors, then it would just be a directory search. Search engines are far more useful and relevant because they give more context to their results. >when I search stuff in a desktop browser, I don’t give a damn about mobile versions Desktop SERPs are actually different than mobile SERPs. They're crawled and indexed independently. A bad mobile site won't affect desktop results.

Search “karmadecay” on google images. You’ll get zero results from karmadecay.com. Not on the first page, not on the 10-th page, it’s just not there. Normally, the domain is very strong keyword. Search for “facebook” and the first image will be from facebook.com, search for “duckduckgo” and you’ll see a screenshot image hosted on duckduckgo.com on the 7-th place (not the first I expected but still high enough). I’m not sure how your duplicate content remark explains this behavior. karmadecay has original logo image, why it’s not found?

SquareWheel 8y ago
A search for "site:karmadecay.com" brings up some results. (warning: mostly nsfw)
- Const-me 8y ago
  Right, I have wrote that in my first comment: > Google will only show result from that domain if you limit search to that domain with “site:karmadecay.com” The question is, why doesn’t normal image search show that site ever, despite tons of content? I know technical reasons are still possible, but so is google breaking laws, they have quite a history of unlawful behavior and have paid billions in fines for that.
  - SquareWheel 8y ago
    >Right, I have wrote that in my first comment My mistake. >I know technical reasons are still possible... It could be as simple as a penalty for breaking one of their webmaster guidelines.
    - Const-me 8y ago
      > could be as simple as a penalty for breaking one of their webmaster guidelines. Agree. Could also be for not having a mobile-friendly version, or for not using AMP. Still, even if google does nothing illegal here and acts in good faith, do you think it’s OK to de-prioritize relevant search results based on these technicalities? As a consumer, when I search stuff in a desktop browser, I don’t give a damn about mobile versions nor webmaster guidelines. I want search results relevant to my search query. Arbitrary limitations imposed on web masters by search engine decrease quality of results.
      - SquareWheel 8y ago
        >Still, even if google does nothing illegal here and acts in good faith, do you think it’s OK to de-prioritize relevant search results based on these technicalities? I do. That's actually the job of a search engine. If it wasn't choosing ranking factors, then it would just be a directory search. Search engines are far more useful and relevant because they give more context to their results. >when I search stuff in a desktop browser, I don’t give a damn about mobile versions Desktop SERPs are actually different than mobile SERPs. They're crawled and indexed independently. A bad mobile site won't affect desktop results.